LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities across diverse tasks, driving the development and widespread adoption of LLM-as-a-Judge systems for automated evaluation, including red teaming and benchmarking. However, these systems are susceptible to adversarial attacks that can manipulate evaluation outcomes, raising critical concerns about their robustness and trustworthiness. Existing evaluation methods for LLM-based judges are often fragmented and lack a unified framework for comprehensive robustness assessment. Furthermore, the impact of prompt template design and model selection on judge robustness has rarely been explored, and their performance in real-world deployments remains largely unverified. To address these gaps, we introduce RobustJudge, a fully automated and modularly extensible framework designed to systematically evaluate the robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge across task datasets, judge prompt templates, judge models, attacks, and defenses. Specifically, RobustJudge investigates the effectiveness of 15 attack methods and 8 defense strategies across 13 models (RQ1), examines the impact of prompt template design and model selection (RQ2), and evaluates the security of real-world deployments (RQ3). Our study yields three main findings: (1) LLM-based judges remain susceptible under both pointwise and pairwise protocols. The combined Attack exhibits the strongest and most transferable performance among those evaluated, while the evaluated defenses exhibit no universal dominance across robustness, benign utility, and computational cost. (2) Robustness is highly sensitive to both prompt-template and judge model choices. (3) Optimization-based attack combined with long suffixes can substantially inflate scores returned by both PAI-Judge variants.